文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)論文外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目: FORM CULTURAL TO CREATIVE INDUSTRIES- An analysis of the implications of the “creative industries” approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom

2、 </p><p>　　出 處: International Journal of Cultural Policy </p><p>　　作 者: Nicholas Garnham </p><p><

3、;b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　Creative Industries Policy</p><p>　　We can now return to the nature and validity of the implicit claims being made by the mobilisation of the term “creative in

4、dustries” and their policy impacts. These can be reduced to two: that the creative industries are the key new growth sector of the economy, both nationally and globally, and thus, against a background of manufacturing se

5、ctor decline, they are the key source of future employment growth and export earnings. This general line of argument stemmed from the original Making a Busin</p><p>　　1、The measurement of the creative indust

6、ries in the “Creative Industries Mapping Document”(DCMS 2001) and the associated claims that they now represent the fastest sector of economic growth;</p><p>　　2、the stress on the training of creative worke

7、rs; and</p><p>　　3、the stress on the protection of intellectual property.</p><p>　　This is the source of the view expressed in the Labour Party’s Create the Future that the cultural industries “

8、are vital to the creation of jobs and the growth of our economy. The creative and media industries world wide are growing rapidly – we must grasp the opportunities presented” (Labour Party 1997). Note the distinction mad

9、e at this stage between creative and media industries. It is also the source of Chris Smith’s claim (at the time, the responsible government minister) in his Creative Br</p><p>　　It is in justifying these cl

10、aims and the policies that derive from them that the use of the term “creative” has been crucial. In the Mapping Document, the term “creative” was chosen so that the whole of the computer software sector could be include

11、d. Only on this basis was it possible to make the claims about size and growth stand up. However, this inclusion had two valuable policy consequences for the interests involved. It enabled software producers and the majo

12、r publishing and media conglomer</p><p>　　The Artist as Creative Worker</p><p>　　The second consequence of the choice of the term “creative” and the inclusion of computer software in the definit

13、ion of the “creative industries” was that it enabled the cultural sector to use arguments for the public support of the training of “creative workers” originally developed for the ICT industry. The original argument deri

14、ved from so-called “endogenous growth” theory which attributed the relative international competitiveness of nations and industries to the institutional structures sup</p><p>　　This whole argument has very w

15、ide policy implications because it increasingly drives education policy. While there may be something in the general human capital argument, the skill shortage argument, and still less the response of attempts at micro m

16、anpower planning through the public education and training system, has never made much sense even within the ICT field. That the American dominance in global media is the result of superior education or training or that

17、 the United Kingdom is short o</p><p>　　Access, Excellence and Accountability</p><p>　　Current creative industries policy is presented as a break with the past in two senses.The renaming of the

18、Department of National Heritage as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is intended, on the one hand, to signal a shift of focus away from support for the “traditional” high arts, with their association with the p

19、rotection of the values of some golden age, towards the creatively new (often associated with young, trendy and “cool”). On the other hand, the idea is to signify a shift of</p><p>　　In my view, in the pursu

20、it of these aims the shift from cultural to creative industries marks a return to an artist-centred, supply-side cultural support policy and away from that policy direction, which the use of the term “cultural industries

21、” originally signalled, that focused on distribution and consumption (Garnham 2000). It is for that very reason that the arts lobby favours it.</p><p>　　The policy problems raised by this supply-side creativ

22、e industries approach relate to deep-seated arts policy dilemmas. Should support be focused on producers or consumers? Is there a restricted range of cultural forms or activities that merit public subsidy and, if so, why

23、? This question of a hierarchy of cultural forms and practices that merit public support, and of judgements of quality, other than those of popularity, is hidden in current policy discourse under the notoriously fluid te

24、rm “ex</p><p>　　This pursuit of excellence as a standard for public support under the creative industries banner continues to raise two key policy problems. First, if we reject the market test, which many ho

25、ld to be the most rigorous test of excellence, how do we identify which artists or “creatives” to support? (Classically, with the Arts Council, this was left to peer review.) Second, how do we reconcile this with access

26、if audiences fail to appreciate this creativity? It is striking that there is a clear con</p><p>　　From one perspective, the claimed success of the creative industries might lead one to suppose that the prob

27、lem of democratisation of access was on the way to solution. Such industries are driven by market imperatives to attract the widest possible range of consumers and precisely for that reason do not sustain a hierarchy of

28、artistic forms and practices. Indeed their opponents criticise their cultural effects for exactly this reason; it has become known in popular journalistic parlance as “dumb</p><p>　　In Creative Britain, the

29、former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith (1998), stated that “access will be the corner stone of our cultural policy. Experience of the highest quality must be available to the widest possible

30、audience.” Yet the problem here is that quality and excellence are open to the market test of consumer preference and access is, by definition, not a problem, since a successful creative industry has solved the access pr

31、oblem through the market. If it is </p><p><b>　　譯 文： </b></p><p>　　從文化產(chǎn)業(yè)到創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)—對(duì)于英國(guó)涵蓋在“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”方式下對(duì)于藝術(shù)和媒體政策形成的分析</p><p><b>　　一、創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)政策</b></p><p>　

32、　我們現(xiàn)在可以回歸到“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”這個(gè)術(shù)語所隱含的性質(zhì)和有效性以及它們的政策的影響了。這些可以分成兩個(gè)：無論是國(guó)內(nèi)還是國(guó)際上，創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的新的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)，當(dāng)然這是在制造業(yè)下降的背景條件下，它們是將來促進(jìn)就業(yè)和出口利潤(rùn)增長(zhǎng)的關(guān)鍵因素。這些論點(diǎn)來自《利用信息做筆生意》這篇文章，但是后來又被聯(lián)想到英國(guó)大眾工作的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力，和一些管理專家的文章激勵(lì)，例如邁克爾.波特，它為統(tǒng)計(jì)創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的出口創(chuàng)匯和潛力提供了數(shù)據(jù)（英國(guó)1991年的無形貿(mào)易），同時(shí)為

33、麥若薩歐克在1988關(guān)于《藝術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)在英國(guó)的重要性》的研究和格漢和他的伙伴在1996年味英國(guó)進(jìn)出口委員會(huì)所作的《創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的出口潛力》研究也提供了數(shù)據(jù)。正是由這些政策分析得到了：</p><p>　　在“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)宏圖”中隊(duì)創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的衡量（文化傳媒和體育部，2001）和他們現(xiàn)在所聲稱的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)最快的分支；</p><p><b>　　強(qiáng)調(diào)創(chuàng)造性的工人</b></p&g

34、t;<p>　　強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)。</p><p>　　這是工黨在“創(chuàng)造文萊”會(huì)議上所表達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為文化產(chǎn)業(yè)在創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)和發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)上都是至關(guān)重要的。創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)和媒體行業(yè)在世界范圍內(nèi)得到了快速發(fā)展，我們必須把握現(xiàn)有的機(jī)會(huì)。（工黨1997）請(qǐng)注意這個(gè)階段創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)和傳媒行業(yè)之間的區(qū)別。來自于克里斯-斯密斯（當(dāng)時(shí)的國(guó)防部長(zhǎng)）在他的《創(chuàng)新性英國(guó)》中的申明：就這些產(chǎn)業(yè)中已經(jīng)有的水平，技術(shù)和數(shù)字的不斷更新，

35、我們持續(xù)對(duì)于人才的支持來說，這些創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)就是下個(gè)世紀(jì)工作崗位和財(cái)富的來源。（斯密斯，1998年，第25頁(yè)） 從這些說法和政策來看，使用“創(chuàng)造性”這個(gè)術(shù)語已經(jīng)是至關(guān)重要的了?！兑?guī)劃文件》中“創(chuàng)造性”這個(gè)術(shù)語已經(jīng)有了，所以所有的電腦軟件都應(yīng)該把這個(gè)術(shù)語包括進(jìn)來。只有在這個(gè)基礎(chǔ)上，才有可能發(fā)表對(duì)于數(shù)量和增長(zhǎng)量的看法。然而，這其中包含了兩個(gè)具有參考價(jià)值的政策結(jié)果。它能使得軟件制造商和主要的出版及媒體集團(tuán)和文化工作者，小型的文化公司形成一

36、個(gè)聯(lián)盟，加強(qiáng)對(duì)版權(quán)的保護(hù)。軟件行業(yè)試圖推動(dòng)加強(qiáng)對(duì)于軟件保護(hù)的力度。全球主要媒體氣團(tuán)想要延長(zhǎng)版權(quán)保護(hù)并且加強(qiáng)流通管制。在所有的情況下，這都要涉及破壞現(xiàn)有的公用規(guī)定，同時(shí)，根據(jù)一些分析家分析，這相對(duì)于鼓勵(lì)來說根本就對(duì)創(chuàng)新的</p><p>　　二、作為藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)意工人</p><p>　　選擇“創(chuàng)造性”這個(gè)術(shù)語的第二個(gè)結(jié)果和在電腦軟件中對(duì)于“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”的定義是這使得文化部門使用公眾支持的觀點(diǎn)來

37、對(duì)“創(chuàng)造性工人”的訓(xùn)練，這本來是用于信息與通信技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)的。原來的論證來自于所謂的“內(nèi)生增長(zhǎng)”理論，這把相對(duì)來說國(guó)際化的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和產(chǎn)業(yè)歸因到對(duì)于改革結(jié)構(gòu)的支持，其中的一些規(guī)定是訓(xùn)練合適的人才。這后來又轉(zhuǎn)變成對(duì)在通信行業(yè)缺少技術(shù)是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和相對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的阻礙的指責(zé)。在這個(gè)普遍的背景下，選擇“創(chuàng)造性”這個(gè)術(shù)語能使文化部門宣稱如果沒有公眾的支持就沒有充分的創(chuàng)造性工人來保證英國(guó)在日益增長(zhǎng)的國(guó)際文化產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)業(yè)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。</p><p

38、>　　這整個(gè)的論點(diǎn)有非常廣泛的政策影響，因?yàn)檫@日益驅(qū)動(dòng)著教育政策。但是在普遍的人才論點(diǎn)上可能會(huì)有點(diǎn)問題，缺少技術(shù)，在通過大眾教育和培訓(xùn)系統(tǒng)來嘗試微型人才計(jì)劃這方面的回復(fù)還是比較少的，甚至在通信淋雨也沒有取得有意義的成就。美國(guó)可以稱霸全球的媒體事業(yè)主要是由于高質(zhì)量的教育或訓(xùn)練，而英國(guó)就缺少那些能通過嚴(yán)苛考試的“創(chuàng)造性”工人。甚至《格漢報(bào)道》（格漢和他的伙伴，1996）討論到通過出口來結(jié)束以上部門的失業(yè)率。在大眾教育政策上來說，有一個(gè)

39、觀點(diǎn)是轉(zhuǎn)向服務(wù)部門----這也受到了具體的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)分析的支持，這些工作對(duì)于技術(shù)的要求在增長(zhǎng)---不僅僅是對(duì)于高技術(shù)的需求增長(zhǎng)了，而且對(duì)于人際交往和有關(guān)的技能和對(duì)于人道主義信息的分析恩能力，而不僅限于人文科學(xué)，教育技術(shù)了。然而，這并不是一場(chǎng)現(xiàn)在藝術(shù)學(xué)院正在試圖建設(shè)的一場(chǎng)紛爭(zhēng)，因?yàn)閿U(kuò)大或者支持藝術(shù)教育和培訓(xùn)的理由是因?yàn)樗a(chǎn)出來的產(chǎn)品只有“創(chuàng)造力”。（這個(gè)論點(diǎn)的擴(kuò)展見格漢2002）</p><p>　　三、準(zhǔn)入，

40、成功和責(zé)任</p><p>　　與過去相比，目前的創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)政策在兩方面中有所突破。準(zhǔn)備將“國(guó)家遺產(chǎn)部門”更名為“文化、媒體、體育部門”，一方面標(biāo)志著將重心從傳統(tǒng)的高“藝術(shù)”（通常與保護(hù)鼎盛時(shí)期的文物方面有關(guān)），轉(zhuǎn)移到那些創(chuàng)造性的新型的事物（通常與年輕，時(shí)尚和“酷”有關(guān)）。另一方面，也標(biāo)志著將重心從娛樂部門的邊緣性轉(zhuǎn)移到對(duì)中心商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)政策的高度關(guān)注，這個(gè)一個(gè)從娛樂到面包的轉(zhuǎn)變。在這顯著的轉(zhuǎn)變中，關(guān)于商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)政策的四

41、個(gè)關(guān)鍵主題是“使用”、“卓越”、“教育”和“經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值”。</p><p>　　在我看來，要達(dá)到這些目的，就要從文化向創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變。這個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變標(biāo)志著回到了一個(gè)以藝術(shù)家為中心，供應(yīng)文化支撐政策，并且偏離了那個(gè)以使用“文化產(chǎn)業(yè)”這個(gè)術(shù)語為最初標(biāo)志、以分布與消費(fèi)為中心的政策方向。它是基于這一原因,藝術(shù)游說議員們贊成了這一觀點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　這是由供應(yīng)學(xué)派提出政策。此創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的方法與長(zhǎng)期以來的

42、的藝術(shù)政策困境有關(guān)。應(yīng)該將支持力度集中于生產(chǎn)者還是消費(fèi)者？有沒有對(duì)文化形式和活動(dòng)的嚴(yán)格分類是值得公眾的補(bǔ)貼的，如果是，那又是為什么？這個(gè)問題是關(guān)于文化形式和實(shí)踐的等級(jí)制度，是值得大眾的支持，是有品質(zhì)的判斷，而非那些普及的。是隱藏在目前策略演講中的那些最臭名昭著的流行性術(shù)語“卓越”。這種說法是,現(xiàn)行政策是集中民主化文化上，通過擴(kuò)大或減小各種文化體驗(yàn)的壁壘。使用的擴(kuò)大不僅適用于觀眾,而且也使用與生產(chǎn)方面。從而使最大數(shù)量的人來充分發(fā)揮他們的創(chuàng)

43、造潛力。這有時(shí)與人力資本和國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的論點(diǎn)聯(lián)系在一起。</p><p>　　對(duì)于優(yōu)點(diǎn)的追求作為一個(gè)公眾支持的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)標(biāo)語下產(chǎn)生了兩個(gè)主要的政策性問題。首先，如果我們拒絕那些被稱為是最嚴(yán)苛的對(duì)于成功市場(chǎng)測(cè)試，我們?nèi)绾未_定支持哪個(gè)藝術(shù)家或者“創(chuàng)造者”？（傳統(tǒng)上來說，藝術(shù)委員會(huì)會(huì)把這個(gè)留給同行來審查）第二，如果觀眾無法欣賞這種創(chuàng)造力，我們?nèi)绾蝸碜稣{(diào)和？在現(xiàn)行的政策和教育的方法和對(duì)于“創(chuàng)造核心”的定義的壓力之間有十

44、分明顯的矛盾，這是驚人的。關(guān)鍵的問題是如果我們希望把重點(diǎn)放在成功上而拒絕公眾簡(jiǎn)單的測(cè)試，我們只會(huì)留下難以定義和衡量?jī)?yōu)點(diǎn)的難題。（希爾伍德 2000）事實(shí)上我們無法回避有關(guān)于藝術(shù)政策的“優(yōu)點(diǎn)”的這個(gè)術(shù)語的總結(jié)只是排他性的代碼而已，因?yàn)槲幕a(chǎn)業(yè)和創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)所生產(chǎn)出來的產(chǎn)品和日常生活中吸引消費(fèi)者消費(fèi)的文化產(chǎn)品（優(yōu)點(diǎn)發(fā)現(xiàn)之處）是截然不同的。這些和在廣播中為大家所熟知的“質(zhì)量”“公眾服務(wù)”是有爭(zhēng)議的。目前一個(gè)很好的說明來自于奧卡姆嘗試對(duì)“公眾服務(wù)”

45、做一個(gè)清楚的定義。雖然我不想這么說，但是以前也有人嘗試過，但是沒有成功。所有目前的努力都是因?yàn)檎呱系乃坪跏桥既坏膮s又是必須的對(duì)于公眾服務(wù)的定義的轉(zhuǎn)變，從廣播公司和他們的經(jīng)理，特別是英國(guó)廣播公司。</p><p>　　從一個(gè)角度來看，創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的成功申明可能導(dǎo)致人們相信民主化的問題正在通往解決的道路上。這樣的行業(yè)正式被市場(chǎng)驅(qū)動(dòng)的，來吸引盡可能不同層次的顧客，就是為了不停留在一個(gè)層次的藝術(shù)形式和實(shí)踐上。而且他們的對(duì)手

46、就是為了這個(gè)原因批判他們的文化效應(yīng)。這在廣大新聞工作者中都被稱為“簡(jiǎn)化當(dāng)中”。既不放棄傳統(tǒng)意義上對(duì)于藝術(shù)工作者的支持，也不放棄對(duì)被一系列“創(chuàng)意”“成功”等的術(shù)語覆蓋的質(zhì)量層次的支持。</p><p>　　在有創(chuàng)造力的英國(guó)，前文化，媒體及運(yùn)動(dòng)國(guó)務(wù)卿（1998）表示“準(zhǔn)入是我們文化政策的基石，體驗(yàn)最高質(zhì)量的品質(zhì)必須被最廣泛的用戶所享受”。但現(xiàn)在的問題是，質(zhì)量和成功是接受顧客的偏好測(cè)驗(yàn)的，而準(zhǔn)入顯然不是一個(gè)問題，以為一